[Maul] Correct decision when a maul/ruck wheels

[Phil E]

Looking beyond the problem.

If the ball is at the back (where it should be) and the opposition tries to swing it round, the ball carrying team will just break off legally by continuing the maul moving forward, leaving the opposition players with no where to go apart from leave and come back round to their own side.

If however the ball is stuck in the middle and not moving to the back, then we will end up with no one wanting to release it and the situation in the OP will arise. If it's not coming out of the middle, where both teams will have a wrap on the ball carrier, then all the more reason for a whistle and turnover.

Teams that don't get the mall ball to the back deserve to lose it because it's usually an indication of no support when the maul is formed, resulting in the ball carrier getting wrapped by opposition, meaning he will never be able to get the ball back.

 

[Treadmore]

If however the ball is stuck in the middle and not moving to the back, then we will end up with no one wanting to release it and the situation in the OP will arise. If it's not coming out of the middle, where both teams will have a wrap on the ball carrier, then all the more reason for a whistle and turnover.

And if the ball was in the middle of the rotated maul then moving it to the "back" means handing the ball to an offside player - so 11.6(b)?

Unless ball was at the back originally it seems the rotated maul can't end successfully?

 

[OB..]

And if the ball was in the middle of the rotated maul then moving it to the "back" means handing the ball to an offside player - so 11.6(b)?

Players legally in the maul are not offside. However handing the ball to a team mate in front of you is a throw-forward.

Unless ball was at the back originally it seems the rotated maul can't end successfully?

If a pod of players can break off with the ball once the maul has wheeled, that is surely a successful end.

 

[Treadmore]

Players legally in the maul are not offside. However handing the ball to a team mate in front of you is a throw-forward.

I thought 11.6(b) was a better fit
[laws]When a player hands the ball to a team-mate in front of the first player, the receiver is offside. Unless the receiver is considered to be intentionally offside (in which case a penalty kick is awarded), the receiver is accidentally offside and a scrum is formed with the opposing team throwing in the ball.
[/laws]

If a pod of players can break off with the ball once the maul has wheeled, that is surely a successful end.

Is it? The scenario is a rotated maul with the ball still in the middle of the maul. I guess there is a possible sequence of events but it just seems unlikely to me.

 

[Dickie E]

Looking beyond the problem.

If the ball is at the back (where it should be) and the opposition tries to swing it round, the ball carrying team will just break off legally by continuing the maul moving forward, leaving the opposition players with no where to go apart from leave and come back round to their own side.

If however the ball is stuck in the middle and not moving to the back, then we will end up with no one wanting to release it and the situation in the OP will arise. If it's not coming out of the middle, where both teams will have a wrap on the ball carrier, then all the more reason for a whistle and turnover.

Teams that don't get the mall ball to the back deserve to lose it because it's usually an indication of no support when the maul is formed, resulting in the ball carrier getting wrapped by opposition, meaning he will never be able to get the ball back.

He may be able to go to ground with the ball. And while unlikely I'd let it breathe for a bit & see what happens. Always looking for reasons not to blow.

 

[Dave Elliott]

provided the players remain bound to, or caught up in, the maul then they are not offside and do not need to break off and re-enter. If they do choose to break off, then they need to re-enter from the hindmost feet nearest their goal line. The ball does not become the offisde line.

Provided the maul contiunes to move it has not ended and may continue to rotate, etc.

Be wary of players trying to drag opponents out of the "wrong" side of the maul.

And welcome, Voetap, to the forum. Nice to see another Saffer on board.

sorry to drag an old post up, but this answers a question I have had for ages, so great thank you. One quick one though on pulling out players. I've read that this is not legal, but while watching top level matches I seem to see it a lot, and no penalty given?

 

[Phil E]

sorry to drag an old post up, but this answers a question I have had for ages, so great thank you. One quick one though on pulling out players. I've read that this is not legal, but while watching top level matches I seem to see it a lot, and no penalty given?

You are correct, but it is very rarely a material offence, so if you blow up you are perhaps just stopping the game for no reason. Better to manage it verbally and keep the game alive.

 

[Nigib]

You are correct, but it is very rarely a material offence, so if you blow up you are perhaps just stopping the game for no reason. Better to manage it verbally and keep the game alive.

?? Not material? Surely it's likely to upset the balance of the maul, potentially destabilising and giving an advantage to the non-offending side? Could also be a safety issue?

If I see it starting, I will warn to stop it happening, then advantage and ping if necessary/no advantage

 

[Ian_Cook]

Trying to drag a player out of a maul is potentially dangerous and can lead to injury of the dragged player if he is stuck in the maul

Interestingly, dragging a player out of a ruck is legal.

 

[crossref]

Interestingly, dragging a player out of a ruck is legal.

you reckon? - would that be provided you are behind the back foot, and not being part of the ruck yourself ?

 

[Pegleg]

?? Not material? Surely it's likely to upset the balance of the maul, potentially destabilising and giving an advantage to the non-offending side? Could also be a safety issue?

If I see it starting, I will warn to stop it happening, then advantage and ping if necessary/no advantage

Agreed It is unlikely I'll consider it to be immaterial.

 

[Ian_Cook]

you reckon? - would that be provided you are behind the back foot, and not being part of the ruck yourself ?

If they weren't then they would be offside, which has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it is legal to drag a player out of a ruck.

Dragging players away from the tackle and ruck is a commonly used tactic in the SH. An opponent will end up on the wrong side of a tackle, and does not roll away quickly enough when the ruck is formed, so a pillar or another player not involved will drop back and drag him out of it. Standard practice and completely legal (no matter how much you wish it wasn't).

 

[Phil E]

?? Not material? Surely it's likely to upset the balance of the maul, potentially destabilising and giving an advantage to the non-offending side? Could also be a safety issue?

If any of those things happen then it would become material.
If they don't (which is usual in my experience), then it isn't.

 

[Balones]

If they weren't then they would be offside, which has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it is legal to drag a player out of a ruck.

Dragging players away from the tackle and ruck is a commonly used tactic in the SH. An opponent will end up on the wrong side of a tackle, and does not roll away quickly enough when the ruck is formed, so a pillar or another player not involved will drop back and drag him out of it. Standard practice and completely legal (no matter how much you wish it wasn't).

Ian, I am very often in agreement with your point of view but I have to say that I cannot agree with your statement about dragging out of a ruck being legal. The laws state (clearly?] what a player must do at a ruck and if they do not comply then the referee can penalise them. it is not for the players to take the law into their own hands. The laws explain how a player may participate in a ruck standing outside and dragging someone is not covered and I believe could be covered by playing a player without the ball.
now this is not to say that what you outline does not happen but I would say that it is allowed for management and depends how it is done, Sometimes a player may actually be grateful to be helped out so that he is not penalised.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Ian, I am very often in agreement with your point of view but I have to say that I cannot agree with your statement about dragging out of a ruck being legal. The laws state (clearly?] what a player must do at a ruck and if they do not comply then the referee can penalise them. it is not for the players to take the law into their own hands. The laws explain how a player may participate in a ruck standing outside and dragging someone is not covered and I believe could be covered by playing a player without the ball.
now this is not to say that what you outline does not happen but I would say that it is allowed for management and depends how it is done, Sometimes a player may actually be grateful to be helped out so that he is not penalised.

Its not what they MUST do, its what they are ALLOWED to do and NOT ALLOWED to do that is relevant.

Much of Law 16 and Law 17 are repeated word for word with "maul" substituted for "ruck". Other offences not specific to mauling/rucking, joining and offside are covered in, appropriately, "Other Offences"...

[LAWS]17.3 OTHER MAUL OFFENCES
(a) A player must not try to drag an opponent out of a maul.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(b) A player must not take any action to make the opposing team think that the ball is out of
the maul while it is still in the maul.
Sanction: Free Kick
[/LAWS]

[LAWS]16.4 OTHER RUCK OFFENCES
(a) Players must not return the ball into a ruck.
Sanction: Free Kick
(b) Players must not handle the ball in a ruck except after a tackle if they are on their feet and
have their hands on the ball before the ruck is formed.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(c) Players must not pick up the ball in a ruck with their legs.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(d) Players on the ground in or near the ruck must try to move away from the ball. These
players must not interfere with the ball in the ruck or as it comes out of the ruck.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(e) A player must not fall on or over the ball as it is coming out of a ruck.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(f) A player must not take any action to make the opposing team think that the ball is out of
the ruck while it is still in the ruck.
Sanction: Free Kick[/LAWS]

Please note that there is NO equivalent of Law 17.3 (a) in the Ruck Laws. Dragging a player out of a Maul is specifically outlawed in Law 17, but Law 16 is completely silent on dragging a player out of a ruck. If you PK a layer for doing so, then you are making it up as you go.

Dragging a player out of a ruck is in fact a coached technique in this country (I coach it myself for our juniors). I have seen it done hundreds of times over the years in many different grades from weeds to elite rugby and I have never seen it penalised.

 

[Wedgie]

What I observe more often at a ruck is a member of the team in possession bridging on the (ex-) ball carrier, then the opposition pulling this 'bridger' down/out/forward from the ruck. This is often dangerous as the bridger is unbalanced and can land on his head so I ping for collapsing the ruck/incorrect binding/dangerous play*

Wedgie

* take your pick

 

[Decorily]

What I observe more often at a ruck is a member of the team in possession bridging on the (ex-) ball carrier, then the opposition pulling this 'bridger' down/out/forward from the ruck. This is often dangerous as the bridger is unbalanced and can land on his head so I ping for collapsing the ruck/incorrect binding/dangerous play*

Wedgie


* take your pick

So are you saying you penalise the defender?
What about the first offense.. 'bridging'?

- - - Updated - - -

What I observe more often at a ruck is a member of the team in possession bridging on the (ex-) ball carrier, then the opposition pulling this 'bridger' down/out/forward from the ruck. This is often dangerous as the bridger is unbalanced and can land on his head so I ping for collapsing the ruck/incorrect binding/dangerous play*

Wedgie


* take your pick

So are you saying you penalise the defender?
What about the first offense.. 'bridging'?

 

[Wedgie]

So are you saying you penalise the defender?
What about the first offense.. 'bridging'?

If the hands of the bridger are on the floor beyond the ball carrier...then yes, I would probably view that as illegal. But the scenario I am attempting to describe is the bridger having hands on the ex-ball carrier who is on the floor, with the bridger supporting his own weight on his feet. He then gets dragged off his feet by the defender. (Many threads on crocodile role on this forum, but my scenario is not a grabbing of the torso with a full bind - but pulling the arms/shoulders of the bridger and pulling him over the ball carrier.)

 

[didds]

What I observe more often at a ruck is a member of the team in possession bridging on the (ex-) ball carrier, then the opposition pulling this 'bridger' down/out/forward from the ruck. This is often dangerous as the bridger is unbalanced and can land on his head so I ping for collapsing the ruck/incorrect binding/dangerous play*

Wedgie

* take your pick

Maybe his head should be above his hips when bridging. It far less likely he'll end up on his head that way.

Just saying.

didds

 

[Decorily]

...the scenario I am attempting to describe is the bridger having hands on the ex-ball carrier who is on the floor, with the bridger supporting his own weight on his feet.

My bad. Fair enough.

In an ideal world the bridger would have head and shoulders above hips as mentioned above........ obviously I don't referee in an ideal world as I rarely see it! !